CDWYR/1

Laws/1895, 303, records that Miss Bowen Jones was the first to recognise an inscription on this stone, after the whitewash with which the stone was covered had faded. The stone was at Gwarmacwydd, near Llanfallteg, and it stood as a rubbing post `...in one of a series of park-like fields in front of Gwarmacwydd House'.

Rhys/1896, 108--110, records that the stone had originally stood at Castell Dwyran and had served as part of the churchyard fence by either a small gate or a stile, he also quotes a letter from the Rector of this church which states `that the stone stood in its place in the fence until 15 or 16 years ago, when the fence was partly rebuilt and repaired. This was three of four years after the restoration of the church in 1876. The stone was taken down and dragged to the side of a hedge close by...and lay there until...it was convenient to carry it to Gwarmacwydd field'.

Anon/1922, 26b, records that Miss Bowen Jones gave the stone to the Carmarthenshire Museum on 18th September 1921.

complete , goodLaws/1895, 303--304: `The stone, a water-worn boulder...and seems to have been weathered'. He also records (p. 303) that the stone was used as a rubbing post, but this does not seem to have caused much damage.

MacCana/1961, 116--117, and Hamp/1996, 293, have argued that PROTICTORIS and *votep give the same semantic meaning of `shelter, refuge'. Hamp/1996, 293, argued that this was a translation into Latin of the name, while MacCana/1961, 116--117, left open the question of whether it was a name that was `translated' or a title.

Jackson/1982, 32, n. 10, notes that there are difficulties with this argument but does not say what they are.

Jackson/1953, 169--170: `This inscription seems to prove that in Britain when an Irish king's name was to be written in Latin the British equivalent for it was or might be used, and this implies the existence of speakers of British in the community, and that the Irish identified Britons and Romans. It shows, too, that the Irish people themselves knew the correct Irish form of the name, and (as the change of qu to c indicates) continued to speak their language as a living and evolving tongue in the middle of the sixth century. Since both forms are to some extent traditional spellings not exactly representing the spoken language of the time, it follows that neither can be taken as a mere 'translation' of the other made on the spot; the names had been known each in its own tongue for some while, and a state of bilinguilism is therefore implied'.

Palaeography:

Nash-Williams/1950, 107: `Roman capitals. The M, with extra final upward stroke, approximates to the archaic Roman (Etruscan) letter; the V has the Y-form, also archaic, occasionaly found in Christian-Roman inscriptions from the 4th century A.D. onwards'.

Macalister/1945, 342, argues that the O in line 2 has a `loop attached to its bottom', and that all the R's `of this inscription are different in form'.

Nash-Williams/1938, 38: `some of the letters show attempts at forked serifs', in particular the final S.

The G is sickle-shaped; the first R in PROTICTORIS has a short oblique stroke, and the second has the upper part of the bow continuing to the left beyond the ascender.

Legibility:

goodMacalister/1945, 342: `all the writing...in good condition though worn'.

Laws/1895, 304: `the stone seems to have been weathered, so that the inscription is not easy to decipher'.

Voteporigis (Language: Brittonic; Gender: male)
Jackson/1953, 169, argues that `the Latin inscription gives the British form of the name, nominative *Uoteporix, with the usual Brittonic p'. He also argues, 627, that the form of the name was influenced by Latin regis.

Sims-Williams/1990, 226, argues, however, that the difference between *Vo- and *Vor- cannot be ascribed to problems with the transmission of Gildas (see Jackson/1953, 625 note 1), that the names are not the same and, therefore, that the individuals are not the same. He also argues that the two probably belonged to the same dynasty.

Votecorigas (Language: Goidelic; Gender: male)
Jackson/1953, 139, 169, argues that VOTECORIGAS is the Irish genitive singular equivalent (not borrowing) of British VOTEPORIGIS, from an older *Uotequorigas, with this name showing the change from /qu/ to /c/.

Since Laws/1895, 303--307 VOTIPORIGIS has usually been identified with the Vortipor, 'tyrant of the Demetae' mentioned in Gildas, De excidioc. 31, 1-2, (for references see NAME-note for CDWYR/1/1).

Sims-Williams/1990, argues, however, that the difference between *Vo- and *Vor- cannot be ascribed to problems with the transmission of Gildas (see Jackson/1953, 625 note 1), and that the names are not the same, nor were the people. He also argues, however, that the two probably belonged to the same dynasty.